Please do not use the Classified section for discussion.   Replies not relevant to the specific item for sale, will be deleted.
The Classified section is open to any individual (non-commercial firms) posting of items for sale or wanted. Members posting commercial advertisements must be enrolled in a Supporting Merchant program.  

It was Berg. His lies and untruths just won't die for some folks. Some things he said still matter. His company still continues to make GREAT parts. Some of his "articles" were nothing but a snake-oil salesman selling you his parts.

The low compression thing went along with his "sem-hemi" heads.

Jimmy,  8.2:1 might be a good ratio depending on cam/heads/lifters/carbs/exhaust.

I'd put thick wall 92's(or Mahle 94s, that's what I have) on it, and have the heads rebuilt/checked out. Then get a cam, rockers, and lifters designed to work with high compression. Flycut those heads after all the other calcs to make it exactly what you want. It ALL matters and needs to be engineered to work together. I'm running 10.2:1, but all parts of my particular combo make it work.

I wish I lived closer, we could do it together. It would be fun!

Gene Berg was a man of conviction, and moved the ball down the field for this hobby. We're all standing on his shoulders to some extent.

His low CR thing was because he came from a time when 99% of the cars these engines went into were full-bodied sedans, 99% of the engines were under 2L, and 99% of the people who built them wanted them to run for 100K mi w/o issue.

We've got different expectations. I'm not looking for more than 50K mi out of a leaned on T1, I haven't run an engine under 2L in 15 years, and and I'd like "snappy" acceleration from whatever is back there.

It's all about the heads. Street head porting is an order of magnitude better than it was back then, and @Pat Downs keeps moving the ball further and further down the field with CNC head porting. We can run higher compression with better heads. Cam design is lagging a bit, but there has been progress there too.

How much CR any of us can run is all about what cam and heads we use. If Jimmy's "got a guy", I'd imagine we can talk all day and it won't make a ton of difference.

I'm anxious to see how this unfolds.

@edsnova  When I built my 1776 I had a conversation with Gene Berg about what parts to use.  That resulted in about a 6.7 compression ratio and semi-hemi heads.  Then I stroked it to 2110 I increased the compression ratio to 9 and changed the heads.

Michael McKelvey  You didn't say, How did the low compression version of your engine run? How did the higher compression larger displacement engine run? In my experience to make power one ingredient must be getting as high a compression as you can without detonation.  You may be able to get some decent HP at higher RPM's with lower CR but the torque numbers just won't be there.

I think there was a very good technical/engineering reason compression ratios precipitously dropped in the 1970s, but I don't have any idea what that reason was.

I also think there's probably a good technical/engineering reason compression ratios have gone up over the past 30 years, and that reason probably has a lot to do with volumetric efficiency, combustion efficiency and, well, torque.

I also think advances in combustion chamber design, better understanding what the flame front does and how to control it, made those higher CRs (Good LOrd, 10 to 1 static CR plus 15 lbs of boost?? In an econobox?) conceivable, but huge advances in computerized engine management systems and variable cam profiles made them practical. 

With that understanding, it's theoretically possible to build a Type 1 engine to 10+ CR and turbo it AND have it last a long time. All you would need is like 8 knock sensors, Some kind of variocam system on your rocker arms, special heads, EFI and crankfire ignition (of course)... And probably a new kind of case with five main bearings and a special crank to go with it. 

@edsnova posted:

With that understanding, it's theoretically possible to build a Type 1 engine to 10+ CR and turbo it AND have it last a long time. All you would need is like 8 knock sensors, Some kind of variocam system on your rocker arms, special heads, EFI and crankfire ignition (of course)... And probably a new kind of case with five main bearings and a special crank to go with it. 

Easy, Ed. It's like you are TRYING to throw down the challenge to Stan.

Last edited by Michael Pickett

@Jimmy V. the low compression 1776 seemed to run great. Maybe it would have made more power with higher compression and no hemi-semi heads.

Standard Beetles of the time had about a 7 compression ration I believe.

When I replaced the semi-hemi heads, someone on theSamba still believed in them enough to buy them.

Ed, don't hurt yourself. I'm running 10.2:1 static compression now, today. With carbs and yes, crank fire ignition. Jake Raby, supplied me the engine in 2002. 

It's the dynamic compression that needs to be worried about. If you have really good heads, plenty of cam and rocker, you can run a high static. I'm proof. Anand's motor is proof.

Last edited by DannyP

 

@edsnova posted:

 

...I think there was a very good technical/engineering reason compression ratios precipitously dropped in the 1970s, but I don't have any idea what that reason was...

 

 

Not an engineer and don't play one on YouTube, but I'd guess it was the cheapest way to quickly meet new emission standards, while still using most of the iron already in the parts bin.

That, and suddenly stratospheric gas prices meant no one wanted to be pumping high-test anymore.

Remember, this was before computerized engines let you tweak everything in software.

More here.

 

 

Easy, Ed. It's like you are TRYING to throw down the challenge to Stan.

"New Stan" here. I'm gonna just leave that gauntlet laying there. I'm struggling (in vain, it seems) to keep my current project from spiraling completely out of control. I'm presently out of energy and money to shovel into the boilers of progress.

Regarding turbos-- they are far too cheap and effective for consideration by me. It's much better to chase big numbers by taking a platform to its physical limits, then put an enormous cam in it and try to hold it all together to 7000+ RPM.

I ask you, where's the fun in sticking with a mild(ish) displacement, a stout bottom end, and a mild cam-- then hitting it with a few pounds of boost and matching the numbers attainable for 3x the money with a NA engine?

That's just crazy-talk.

I never doubted you, @DannyP! And I do think many Speedster and Spyder owners can build and run engines to higher static CRs than was common 20 years ago in VW engine world. 

Aside from better spark control, and better heads, it's just true that these cars are usually a bit lighter than a Beetle sedan and—most crucial—their drivers are less likely than the average person to lug the car up a ski jump in third gear with nine frat boys piled on it to "set the record."

That said, I think you—the Weber Whisperer with the fastidious tuning habits—are about the ideal candidate for a 10+ CR Type 1 and, were I an engine builder, I would consider you a different sort of customer than say, Lane Anderson or myself. 

Not necessarily "better," just "different."

And yet here we are, in a world where literally any junkyard Subaru mill you can find comes with a static CR at 10 or above. 

That's the difference, isn't it? To run 10-1 CR with 1930s tech, you need to know something about engines and act on that knowledge. With 2000s tech it's just standard equipment; adjust the valves at 100,000 miles.

Well said my friends! I have enjoyed your dialog immensely(Not being sarcastic either). Here is the short term and long term plan for the blue bomber, My VW wizard returned my call and is ready and willing to go thru the sick 2110, let me know what he finds, recommend and build an engine to fit my stated goals. I am leaving for vacation Wednesday or I would have the engine to him this week. As it is I won't be able to get the engine to him for 2-3 weeks. This is phase one of my master plan. While the engine is being done, I plan to work on a few little cosmetic things and have it all ready for the engine to go back in. Future plans, I spoke with Carey and he said he loves Pumas and has had a few of them over the years. He said he would like to tackle the job once he gets some breathing room, They have gotten behind further than usual because of Covid-19. He estimated a possibility of being able to do the conversion  this coming winter. So I left it at that and plan to  touch base with Carey this fall. I will be saving my nickels and dimes for the conversion. I will run the rebuilt type 1 engine until then and sell it to help offset some of the transplant costs. I am thinking of a Suby 2.5L 180Hp NA engine, Rancho Pro suby Transaxle, heated and air conditioned. This bad boy can be a daily driver.

Last edited by Jimmy V.

Ed,

While I can't find data on the numbers and percentages of Subi turbo vs n/a engines, it's safe to say that your statement of 10:1 CR only applies to n/a engines.  I believe n/a engines are in the minority with Subi, and, with improving turbo technology and mpg and emission requirements, likely to stay there.  Turbo engines usually have a CR of low 8's (8.1-8.5).

Nothing wrong with n/a, but the thrust of tuning efforts don't include them.  You can slap a turbo on a n/a engine, but, by the time you lower the existing CR, you have more time and money invested than you can recoup.

For engine swaps like our hobby uses, turbos bring their own set of challenges, to be sure.  However, those are the engine types that tuners choose.  N/a engines are reliable and long-lasting, but not good candidates for increased horsepower.  

In My case I have the luxury of knowing how a brand new EJ2.5 L Subaru engine performs in an 1800 lb. car and it is as near to perfection as I will get. So I am confident a similar setup with make the Puma super enjoyable. There is a part of me that is saying go with a WRX STI engine but to be honest the cost would raise at least 50-60% on the front end and the car would become a true monster and much harder to keep running cool and more prone to break downs. The sweet spot for me is a stock (think about the concept of an engine like this being called stock)  NA engine which in stock form has 10.5:1 CR., 4 valves per cylinder, hemi style over head cam heads and utilizing variable cam lift technology all to put out 180HP / 178 Ft lbs  of torque and not over heating or stressed in any way. I am  very impressed with Subaru engine technology. The engines run like Swiss sewing machines, I love it. 

Jim is correct you have to be satisfied with 180 ish hp with a SOHC engine but if you go with an older 4 cam with Atom ECU and cam you might get over 200, and elastically 220hp but you can't do any more without being disengenous to yourself and others.  Words from a ralley racing engine builder north of the 49th. 

A turbo WRX engine setup would be more than enough for our PCCA cars for sure and can be found for a lot less money used.

Marty has a GT 240hp ish and is quite pleased. 

 

Update:  I ran an exercise once to get pricing on a new engine with 200hp and more in a N/A and I had heard some say you could get 220-240hp and my local guy subie tech was telling me that it was impossible to get it and even 220 he felt they were exaggerating their results and says to me those numbers are reported in Cali. 

In the end he says to me a small turbo can get you there for little money compared to a new NA especially if we find a good used low mileage engine. Still in the planning stage.

Last edited by IaM-Ray

I wouldn't get too crazy with power in a Puma. It is basically a pan Speedster.

Yeah, let's throw a 250 hp turbo mill in there. Torsion leaf front suspension, recirculating ball steering box, etc..... Let's throw some turbo power in there, just so you can REALLY upset the very marginal chassis at 180hp, just add 60-70 more. Make sure the brakes are stock too, for that extra pucker factor.

Marty and Ray and Bob can get away with a lot in an IM tube-frame with 911 suspension.

I'd wager the Puma would not do as well.

My two cents.

I forgot you have more cars than time to drive them at this point  

DannyP good point on the pan vs frame.

Engine choice, if you want to use a stock ECU, you are limited in years ie 2008 ish more or less, small car has a list of what years are available with the stock ECU but you can also use a Subarugears digital gadget but I have no experience or recommendation with that one.   

I think Carey has a good program getting used cars and a new Short block with stock ECU. IMO.

Last edited by IaM-Ray

Hi Ed,

Thanks for providing the data on Subaru's attempt to get 2.5L performance from a 2.0L block.  I should have qualified my statement to say that it is RARE to find 10:1 compression on a turbo Subaru engine.

Some CR data below:

EJ205: 8.5:1; EJ207: 8:1; EJ20TT: 8.75:1; EJ22: 9.5:1; EJ222: 10:1; EJ226 8:1; EJ25 (n/a) 9.5:1; EJ255 8.4:1; EJ257 8.7:1

My main objection is your statement above: "literally any junkyard Subaru mill you can find comes with a static CR at 10 or above", which is hyperbole on your part and just not true.

Nice score, Jimmy. Looking forward to seeing your progress. 

FWIW, a couple of years ago I took my car into the local Weber/Dellorto experts to have some fine, tuning done and when I went to pick it up the following day, this guy was there. 

imageIii

@dlearl476 posted:

Nice score, Jimmy. Looking forward to seeing your progress. 

FWIW, a couple of years ago I took my car into the local Weber/Dellorto experts to have some fine, tuning done and when I went to pick it up the following day, this guy was there. 

imageIii

@dlearl476 Photo didn’t show. 

@DannyP posted:

I wouldn't get too crazy with power in a Puma. It is basically a pan Speedster.

Yeah, let's throw a 250 hp turbo mill in there. Torsion leaf front suspension, recirculating ball steering box, etc..... Let's throw some turbo power in there, just so you can REALLY upset the very marginal chassis at 180hp, just add 60-70 more. Make sure the brakes are stock too, for that extra pucker factor.

Marty and Ray and Bob can get away with a lot in an IM tube-frame with 911 suspension.

I'd wager the Puma would not do as well.

My two cents.

Or should we say- it won't work! blah blah blah!

You're getting to be an old man! Where's your sense of adventure?

And @edsnova wrote- "With that understanding, it's theoretically possible to build a Type 1 engine to 10+ CR and turbo it AND have it last a long time. All you would need is like 8 knock sensors, Some kind of variocam system on your rocker arms, special heads, EFI and crankfire ignition (of course)... And probably a new kind of case with five main bearings and a special crank to go with it."

You forgot watercooled heads, Ed. THEN it'll work...

Last edited by ALB

Danny wrote: "Yeah, let's throw a 250 hp turbo mill in there. Torsion leaf front suspension, recirculating ball steering box, etc..... Let's throw some turbo power in there, just so you can REALLY upset the very marginal chassis at 180hp, just add 60-70 more. Make sure the brakes are stock too, for that extra pucker factor."

Meh.  

Both my Corvair powered Deserter Dune Buggy and Steve McQueen's Corvair powered custom Manx buggy were over 200hp on a VW pan, trailing arm fronts, Yadda-Yadda.  McQueen's was a bit stiffer than mine and had 4-wheel disks and front beam stiffeners, too.  I think it was built by Pete Condos(?) out in SoCal for the "Thomas Crowne Affair" but he was told by McQueen that he might drive it in the Baja 1000 "so make the sucker rugged".

There was a bunch of us from the Mass. Beach Buggy Association who went out to the Provincetown dunes area on outer Cape Cod to watch the filming of the beach segments and we all got to see the buggy and meet McQueen.  He knew everything about that buggy, like he had made it himself.  He did his own driving in the movie but Faye Dunnaway bailed after the first ride and they used a stunt double.

200 hp on the dunes is one thing. Over 200 at the limit on pavement is quite another.

The amount of seat time I have at, over, and near the limit tells me I'm right.

Al, get your car done! Gordon, cheers!

250 Hp Corvair powered mid engine vintage formula Atlantic race car we used to set FTD's auto crossing every time out. I remember one time the engine backfired on startup on the start line and the foam in the intake box right behind my head caught fire. I had know idea until the safety steward doused me with a fire extinguisher.  The corvair engine was super tricked out with 11:1 CR. custom built heads with intake tubes running to each cylinder and a 750CFM Quadrajet 4 barrel carb. Car ran on 110 octane race fuel only. The 900 lb car was a rocket. It was touted as the fastest Corvair on the planet. The car was built by Corvair go fast guru Warren Leveque.

fki vintage formula atlantic race carFki racer good day at track

Attachments

Images (2)
@DannyP posted:

200 hp on the dunes is one thing. Over 200 at the limit on pavement is quite another.

The amount of seat time I have at, over, and near the limit tells me I'm right.

Al, get your car done! Gordon, cheers!

My engine is supposed to be 125hp, but my guess is that it's closer to 100. It's plenty for me in a 1300lb car. And it keeps the feel of an original better IMO.  Driving a slow car fast is a lot more fun than driving a fast car slow. 

Last summer I ran into a few guys that I went to high school with (or their big or little brothers) at a car show. They all had Cobra replicas. Kirkhams (they're her in town) Factory 5's, etc. To a man, they all wished they'd made 289's. They said the 427's were just brutal and they used their cars a lot less often because of it. 

This is heresy and I absolutely agree. Sometimes too much really is too much, and those times occur most often when 56-year-old us obtains the thing 15-year-old us longed for all these years. 

Let's face it: 15-year-old us was a dumbass. 

 

I am recently back from vacation and ready to get the Puma work started. I pulled the sick 2110/48 weber engine out yesterday. I was a snap. I pulled in alone in 2 hours and it took a better part of an hour to mark all the wiring as I disconnected it. The car has same type of fancy higher energy spark creating ignition deal . Does anyone know this brand of ignition system? I have always used a good high output Bosch coil and a Pertronix ignition setup in a 009 distributor and that has done fine. Sometimes people install super high energy (supposedly) system thinking it will fix an issue that is really rich carb settings or not running a fuel pressure gauge on Weber carbs and gas is blasting past the shut off seats.

 Having a lift makes engine removal easier. I have a rolling table that fits between the rails of the lift. Once the engine bolts are removed the car is lowered until the oil pan is sitting on the table. I then yack the engine away from the transaxle and onto the table then raising the lift and car up and away from the engine sitting on the table.

 I am going to drop the engine off to the engine builder Monday. The exhaust is going to be swapped for an A1 1 5/8" Sidewinder. More to come as the engine guy takes the engine apart. I may pull the heads today if I have time just to see the actual type of head compared to the info. I was given and find out why number 3 cylinder has super low compression.  Oh and I am going to remove the stage 3 pressure plate and install a stage 1 like it should have. I stage 3 would handle a 400 hp V8. 

Puma engine out to rebuild 4

Puma ignitionPuma engine out to rebuild 2Puma engine out to rebuild 1Puma GTE 2110 30

Attachments

Images (5)
Last edited by Jimmy V.

Add Reply

Post Content
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×